PURPOSE: Store-and-forward teledermatology can improve access to dermatology by enabling asynchronous consults. This study assesses it on access, satisfaction, utilization, and costs in a commercial health plan setting. METHODOLOGY: In this prospective observational study with matched control, 47,411 individuals were provided access to teledermatology services staffed by board-certified, licensed dermatologists for 6 months. Two hundred forty-three individuals used the service. One hundred fifty-two participants successfully matched to similar users of in-person services for comparison. Average number of dermatology-related visits and dermatology-related costs in 30, 60, and 90 days postvisit, most frequent diagnoses, time to consult, patient satisfaction, and number of procedures were measured. RESULTS: Average time to consult for the teledermatology group was 16.31 h. Patient satisfaction was 4.38/5. Total dermatology utilization in the postvisit period for the teledermatology and the control groups respectively was 9 and 21 visits at 30 days (p = 0.074), 15 and 46 visits at 60 days (p = 0.005), and 26 and 74 at 90 days (p = 0.001). The dermatology-related spend for the teledermatology and control groups, respectively, was $59 and $113 on the day of the initial consult (p < 0.01), $70 and $202 for 30 days (p = 0.03), $78 and $ 221 for 60 days (p = 0.02), and $86 and $307 for 90 days (p = 0.08) following initial visit. Total number of procedures conducted in the control group at the index visit was 26. In the postvisit period, the total number of procedures in the study and control groups, respectively, were 5 and 15 at 30 days (p = 0.053), 10 and 26 at 60 days (p = 0.088), and 14 and 32 at 90 days (p = 0.082). CONCLUSIONS: Teledermatology services are accessible within hours and associated with high patient satisfaction. There is no evident increased utilization or costs postvisit.
PURPOSE: Store-and-forward teledermatology can improve access to dermatology by enabling asynchronous consults. This study assesses it on access, satisfaction, utilization, and costs in a commercial health plan setting. METHODOLOGY: In this prospective observational study with matched control, 47,411 individuals were provided access to teledermatology services staffed by board-certified, licensed dermatologists for 6 months. Two hundred forty-three individuals used the service. One hundred fifty-two participants successfully matched to similar users of in-person services for comparison. Average number of dermatology-related visits and dermatology-related costs in 30, 60, and 90 days postvisit, most frequent diagnoses, time to consult, patient satisfaction, and number of procedures were measured. RESULTS: Average time to consult for the teledermatology group was 16.31 h. Patient satisfaction was 4.38/5. Total dermatology utilization in the postvisit period for the teledermatology and the control groups respectively was 9 and 21 visits at 30 days (p = 0.074), 15 and 46 visits at 60 days (p = 0.005), and 26 and 74 at 90 days (p = 0.001). The dermatology-related spend for the teledermatology and control groups, respectively, was $59 and $113 on the day of the initial consult (p < 0.01), $70 and $202 for 30 days (p = 0.03), $78 and $ 221 for 60 days (p = 0.02), and $86 and $307 for 90 days (p = 0.08) following initial visit. Total number of procedures conducted in the control group at the index visit was 26. In the postvisit period, the total number of procedures in the study and control groups, respectively, were 5 and 15 at 30 days (p = 0.053), 10 and 26 at 60 days (p = 0.088), and 14 and 32 at 90 days (p = 0.082). CONCLUSIONS: Teledermatology services are accessible within hours and associated with high patient satisfaction. There is no evident increased utilization or costs postvisit.
Authors: Oliver T Nguyen; Amir Alishahi Tabriz; Jinhai Huo; Karim Hanna; Christopher M Shea; Kea Turner Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-05-05 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Muhammad Asif; Arif Jameel; Noman Sahito; Jinsoo Hwang; Abid Hussain; Faiza Manzoor Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-09-03 Impact factor: 3.390